It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New FDR Decode

page: 38
12
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
A single bit binary data point has only 2 states by definition so, in the case of a simple digital indication, there's no 'error' or undefined state just simply open/shut, on/off or whatever the assigned point is monitoriing.[sic]


If that were the case, how would Aircraft Accident Investigators know of a failed or "not working" condition? You cannot have one indication, Logic 0, representing many different conditions. Again, there are many parameters showing all Logic 0.

In other words, what if an accident occurred due to the Entry door opening in flight. If the sensor failed or was "not working", the door would show a closed condition and Aircraft Accident Investigators may not ever know it was the door which caused the accident, according to your logic.




The 'ERROR' indication is generated by the decoding software and would indicate that the parameter was missing in that particular subframe or 'out of bounds' in the case of analog inputs or something along those lines.


"Out of bounds" are the keywords here. "Out-of-bounds" would be a condition other than Logic 0 or Logic 1.

[edit on 28-11-2009 by R_Mackey]




posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by R_Mackey
 


You guys just make this stuff as you go don't you. A bit has exactly 2 values, 0 and 1. Man, this is comedy gold



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by R_Mackey

"Out of bounds" are the keywords here. "Out-of-bounds" would be a condition other than Logic 0 or Logic 1.



That would require at least a 2 bit value in order to have more than 2 possible states.



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 08:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


Pilgrum, I think what "Rob" Mackey is trying to say is that the data is stored in 12 bit WORDs in SSFDR. A lot of parameters can be stored in a single WORD, but in this case only one bit in a WORD is assigned to this parameter. One WORD can read as invalid. You can find details here.

It is fun to watch them squirm ain't it



[edit on 28-11-2009 by 911files]



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum

Originally posted by R_Mackey

"Out of bounds" are the keywords here. "Out-of-bounds" would be a condition other than Logic 0 or Logic 1.



That would require at least a 2 bit value in order to have more than 2 possible states.


The software decodes #ERROR because it does not recognize either the Logic 1 or Logic 0 as assigned to that parameter by the DFL.

Again, how will Aircraft Accident Investigators know if an open Entry door caused an accident if the sensor failed or was "not working" and "defaulted" to Logic 0?

Ok guys, enough playing for today. Got work to do. Enjoy your day!



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by 911files
 


I imagine there'd at least be a parity check on each word and if a word failed the check all parameters in it would be have to be flagged as 'error' and a sync-check failure would flag an entire frame or subframe as bad.

But one solitary single bit indication alone - no



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by R_Mackey

"Out of bounds" are the keywords here. "Out-of-bounds" would be a condition other than Logic 0 or Logic 1.

[edit on 28-11-2009 by R_Mackey]


Well, you blew it again Rob, another Pilots for 9/11 Truth EPIC FAIL. You got everyone to come to your site only to once again get whacked on your backside with the simple fact that the parameter wasn't ever being recorded to begin with. You just discredit your own claims one after another.

POP goes the weasel!

Don't ever claim I didn't warn you, Rob.



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by 911files


It is fun to watch them squirm ain't it




Hi John,

As usual, good work. It was fun to watch them squirm. Now, it's quite upsetting. I trust that Balsamo knew of the data you presented. Balsamo knew that the debunkers would find it as well.

What it did do, was increase the hits on their website. This increases their DVD sales. It's what Balsamo does. 1/2 truths = increased sales at PFT.

What will be fun? The day that when you click on their webpage you get an error message stating that this site does not exist.

Thanks again John for all your hard work!



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper
As usual, good work. It was fun to watch them squirm. Now, it's quite upsetting. I trust that Balsamo knew of the data you presented. Balsamo knew that the debunkers would find it as well.


Thanks Pepper, either he ran a 'false flag' operation with this one or they just don't have a clue what they are doing over there.



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 08:38 AM
link   
[snip]


No pilot calculates his altitude by performing a "running integration of the VSI" in his head.
You look at the altimeter. That's what it's there for.


PA is pressure altitude it is DISPLAYED on a GAUGE.

VSI is rate of ascent/descent in FEET PER MIN. It is also DISPLAYED on
a gauge!

You can re-read my post about VSI and the reference to static port until
you understand it.

The STBY PA is the one that samples pitot, but that's not the device that
produces the FDR data. Got it?

[edit on 28-11-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 08:43 AM
link   


Flight Deck Door WAS polled, installed and read by the FDR. I proved it
by linking the port pin-outs in my previous post. Here it is again. Notice
what a PORT on the DAU looks like when not used:




This is what an assigned port looks like:






Please stop making excuses for the data.


If it hasn't been justified before, this certainly warrants a new investigation



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by rhunter
reply to [url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread512723
----------------------
[rhetorical] Quiz #2- now can this thread move forward about discussing FDR data without discussing "Balsamo" or "Mackeys?"

I honestly don't give a flying f*** whether these various Mackey people are named Robert, Ralph, Rico, Ryan, Ricky, Romeo, Rhiannon, Ramona, Rita, Roderigo, Raoul, Randy, Rusty, Rowdy, Ringo, Rasputin, RuPaul, or Rumplestiltskin! Feel free to start a "Who Is Mackey" thread though (but don't feel too bad if I don't visit it, and that might be against the T&C here).



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by 911files

Originally posted by ImAPepper
As usual, good work. It was fun to watch them squirm. Now, it's quite upsetting. I trust that Balsamo knew of the data you presented. Balsamo knew that the debunkers would find it as well.


Thanks Pepper, either he ran a 'false flag' operation with this one or they just don't have a clue what they are doing over there.


It's likely a bit of both. The site is full of half-truths and innuendo.

The problem is that truthers buy it "hook, line and sinker." Mark my words, they will continue to divert and attempt to conceal this gross misinterpretation, so that you'll see this quoted again in the future as "pwoof" there as no hijacking of AA 77.



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 08:55 AM
link   
double post

[edit on 28-11-2009 by Reheat]



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 08:55 AM
link   
redundant post

[edit on 28-11-2009 by Reheat]



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 09:03 AM
link   
WOW!- triple "posties"..

Have you been experiencing the "finger shakes" for long, Reheat?



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by rhunter
Yes, well your internet "say so" and $7 US will get me a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

Starbucks would charge you just as much if you knew
what we've been talking about.


Which radar, what "terrain, and other data" are you talking about here? Does anyone have any supporting documentation, maps, charts, spreadsheets, etc. to support these assertions,

Yes, but you apparently haven't been following the links.
Maybe you should just wait for the book.


This is why it is important to read AND quote in context, Will. If you read the paragraph that quote was excised from, you will see the "scare quotes" and some old Jon Lovitz/SNL shtick. I am aware that sarcasm doesn't often translate to the internet- I'll try to remember the [/sarc] tag next time, but FYI- that really wasn't any "hypothesis" of mine.

Had I realized you were joking about the 4-foot radio
height being over the Navy annex, I wouldn't have
bothered to respond. It's a ludicrous hypothesis,
to be sure, especially when combined with denial of
any missing seconds---but that hasn't stopped Rob
Balsamo from suggesting it.


Rob, of course, has suggested all sorts of things, even MOABs:
z15.invisionfree.com...

You said you/yours had buried grandmothers who knew
a general form for linear equations in two dimensions.
I apologize for assuming one of those grandmothers was
your own.

Will



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhunter
Oh, I had guessed that you might be trying to remove any doubt that you are likely a pompous ass.


I'm an "old-school" engineer.

I am uniformly polite with people that I meet for the first time...
... except with punks.

I will spend an inordinate, unreasonable amount of time patiently explaining to someone who is trying to understand some concept in some field where know what I'm talking about. I will not pretend to knowledge that I don't have in other fields.

But when some punk starts with the 'tude, or someone is getting pathologically, ignorantly, combativly argumentative, then a verbal bop upside the noggin' is appropriate. If that doesn't bring 'em up short, then a verbal 2x4 is the next step.

This is exactly why old-school engineers have the reputation that you cite. We don't put up with "stupid" very well or very long.


Originally posted by rhunter
I surmised that most astute readers could have discerned that already from this post of yours.


LMAO.

Stating that I am a better ME than TSz is comparable to asserting that "I can sing the National Anthem better than Rosanne Barr".

It's a hurdle on which you could barely stub your toe.

Tony may well be a nice guy. I actually suspect that he is. I have to admire his endurance. But we're talking technical competence here. He has little.


Originally posted by rhunter
Yes, yes, you're "the bestest MechE, you're the bestest EE, you're just the overall bestest in the world, tomfk!"


Wow. I estimated your emotional age at about 20. It appears that I significantly over-shot the mark.

I'm not "the bestest ME". Never claimed anything of the sort.
I'm not an EE at all. Never claimed anything of the sort.

If you really want to debate, how about you quote me accurately? Rather than employing 3rd grade insults. Just a thought...


Originally posted by rhunter
BTW, on that "level of experience utterly unaware of" thing- you aren't even close on your wild speculations Tom.


Oh, so you know MY level of experience?
Or are you unable to read for comprehension?


Originally posted by rhunter


Well then, why don't you ask.
Uh, I did- very subtly- you somewhat even answered the question, but I did have to page back several pages. I'm still not convinced of the relevance, however.


That's because you still don't understand the concepts that we're discussing. But that didn't stop you from jabbering off with snarky, irrelevant remarks, did it?


Originally posted by rhunter


Now, speaking of "red herrings", all the rest of this wouldn't fall into that category, would it?

Nope, 60-80% of those links involve Boeing 757-200 aircraft (you know, as in DFDR, as in decode, with percentage depending upon the "options").


OK, let's see.

They were links that did involve B757s.
They were totally unrelated to the specific topic under discussion (resolution limitations in inferring ground terrain profile from PA & RA data.)
They were ideas that were not your own.
They were thrown, recklessly, into the conversation by you because you didn't get the points being made.

In other words, the were the PERFECT definition of "red herrings".


Originally posted by rhunter
Have a nice life "KingE, Tomk the Bestest"
-rh


Thanks. I will.

TomK



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 01:41 PM
link   
All right. A demonstration.

How a project engineer (or any competent thinking adult) would address the newest "gotcha" of the truther bozos: the "unopen cockpit door".

PROVISIONALLY accepted as facts:

1. The cabin door indicator (NOT the cabin door itself) registers as closed throughout the flight.
2. There are several other flights (as many as 11) that registered the same.

Accepted UNEQUIVOCALLY as facts:
1. The hijacking of AA77 was in integral part of the other hijackings of that day.

2. Charles Burlingame & David Charlebois were at the controls when the plane departed Dulles.

3. There is zero evidence that either Mr. Burlingame or Mr. Charlebois were inclined to suicide & terrorism. They did NOT fly the plane into the Pentagon.

4. There is an enormous amount of evidence in the flight profile that the person at the controls could NOT maintain an altitude without the A/P, could not competently use rudders to maintain a coordinated turn, and could not professionally enter or exit a turn. Both Mr. Burlingame & Mr. Charlebois could do all of the above. Therefore it is INCONCLUSIVE that they were not at the controls.

5. There is zero doubt that, on the other hijacked planes, the hijackers forced their way into the cockpits & then killed the crew. These actions can be heard on ATC recordings.

6. The hijackers could NOT enter the cockpit without opening the door. They did enter the cockpit. Therefore the door WAS open for some period of time.

Conclusion:
The data recorded is wrong.

It could be wrong for any number of reasons.
1. The sensors were not wired in.
2. The sensors were broken, either prior to take-off or in the act of forcing the door open.
3. The wiring was broken.

And probably 50 other reasons that someone could come up with.

What is unequivocal is that the readings are wrong.

The important point is that I don't need to go any further. In order for this to be true, i.e., the door was never opened, there are 100 other known-for-certain things that would have to be incorrect.

If I had a baby engineer coming to me with something comparable to this (as I have in the past), I'd mollify him by letting him make his full presentation, asking direct questions at certain points along the way, and at the end, asking him if he was willing to put a wager on his "suspicions". If he said "yes", then I'd wager $1 with him, and put his wager under the 20 or so other wagers that I'd recorded on a white-board in my office. And then I'd tell him that he could spend precisely 4 more hours (TOTAL) of the company's time on this wild-goose chase. He could spend all of his private time that he wanted. But if it interfered with his real tasks, then he'd be in a heap of trouble.

And this is precisely why I am PERFECTLY comfortable coming to the (provisional but adamant) conclusion that the truther interpretation of this data has to be garbage. Even without knowing the exact detail as to why it is garbage.

I don't expect for an instant that you truther kids will comprehend the subtleties of this "forest for the trees" employment of Occam's razor. That's because of your immaturity and unfamiliarity with making significant judgment calls in the face of limited information.

Further, I have EVERY CONFIDENCE that, over the course of the next few days or weeks, some competent engineer, who knows what he is talking about, will step forward and provide the very reasonable, completely trivial explanation.

And just exactly like all of the last 100 "gotcha's" that set the Truthers all atwitter, this silly, silly bit of ignorance will dissipate. Just like a foul odor once someone opens a window.

Any of you truthers want to put some money on this?

TomK



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan


Flight Deck Door WAS polled, installed and read by the FDR. I proved it
by linking the port pin-outs in my previous post.


No, you posted documents for a parameter not added until late 1997 (757-3) for a plane manufactured in 1991. Only one problem, the parameter was not added until 1997. Show the parameter in the applicable documents (757-1, 757-2). You can't, because they are not there.

So again, show us at least one instance in 42 hours of data of this parameter returning a true value (binary 1) or documents showing the parameter used in the 1991 model plane.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join